Women and ^American Socialism: The cI(eading Experience HE year 1927 marks the greatest political breakthrough in the history of the Reading Socialist Party. That year the TReading comrades captured control of city hall for the first time, electing the mayor, two city councilmen, the city controller, and two school directors. For the next eight years, the Socialists enjoyed frequent electoral success and were the leading party in municipal politics. In retrospect, the Reading experience appears to be one of American Socialism's few political success stories.1 Yet in the words of one of its most prominent spokesmen, the local movement seemed "pretty well shot" on the eve of the 1927 triumph.2 Its last election victory had been a 1916 state assembly contest, and party membership had fallen off in the post-World War I period. By 1927, local dues-paying Socialists numbered less than one hundred. At the April party caucus, where the 1927 municipal candidates were named, approximately fifty members participated and the organization actually experienced difficulty in obtaining a full slate of candidates. Though the party's weekly newspaper, the Reading J^abor <iAdvocate> was optimistic about the approaching campaign, such optimism was premised more on the extraordinarily unpopular tax assessment of the incumbent Demo- 11 wish to thank Jo Ann Carrigan and J. Harvey Young for their constructive comments on this essay. A shortened version was read at the Northern Great Plains History Conference, Sioux Falls, S. D., Oct. 27, 1973. For scholarly accounts of the Reading Socialist movement see Henry G. Stetler, The Socialist Movement in Reading, Pennsylvania, 1896—1936 (Storrs, I943)> William C. Pratt, "The Reading Socialist Experience: A Study of Working Class Politics" (Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1969); Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., "The Socialist Administration in Reading, Pennsylvania, Part 1,1927-1931," Pennsylvania History\ XXXIX (1972), 417-442; "Triumph and Disaster: The Reading Socialists in Power and Decline, 1932-1939—Part II," ibid., XL (1973), 381-411. 2 "Address of Mayor Henry J. [sic] Stump of Reading, Pennsylvania," Socialist Party Collection, Duke University (hereinafter cited as SPC). 72 I975 WOMEN AND AMERICAN SOCIALISM 73 cratic administration than upon the strength of the local Socialist movement.3 One of the major problems confronting the Reading comrades, according to their weekly, was getting out the potential Socialist vote: "In the past, thousands of male Socialist voters failed to register. And in many hundreds of Socialist homes the men of the house were the only ones to cast ballots/'4 The alleged failure of working-class women to vote was a frequent topic for both the J^abor ^Advocate and Socialist spokesmen throughout this campaign and those of the next several years and was the reason why a special effort was made to organize women for political activity in 1927. Years earlier, the Women's Socialist League had been established, although it was considered "a mere auxiliary organization/' Accord- ing to a 1933 J^abor Advocate account, The League was organized in 1903 and since then has been one of the bulwarks of Socialist activity in Berks County. In its early experiences this organization confined itself to fund-raising activities and its members worked unselfishly at the task of preparing luncheons, assisting at picnics and in any other way by which the party could be furnished with finances.6 While fund-raising services of this sort continued to be appreciated by male members, in 1927 they were seeking new ways to attract women voters, since the general decline in party membership had been marked by a comparable decline in women. Out of the approxi- mately fifty participants attending the April nominating caucus, only two were women. And in 1927, unlike several previous years, no women candidates were nominated. Even before the caucus, the campaign committee had appointed a man as a "special organizer" for Socialist women.6 Reading was a predominately working-class city of over 100,000, in which almost 60 per cent of its families owned their own homes.7 That situation made the electorate particularly responsive to the Socialist attack on the recent unpopular tax assessment and 3 Personal interview with L. Birch Wilson, Sept. 7, 1967; Reading Eagle, Nov. 21, 1927; Reading Labor Advocate, Jan. 1, 1927. 4 Labor Advocate, Jan. 1, 1927. 5 Ibid., July 28, 1933. 6 Eagle, Nov. 21, 1927; Labor Advocate, Mar. 19, 1927. 7 Stetler, The Socialist Movement, 12, 14. 74 WILLIAM C. PRATT January their promise to revise it in favor of the working class. Apparently Socialists felt that this issue was especially persuasive with women voters, as the J^abor ^Advocates editor noted in his weekly front- page column: It is encouraging to note the large number of women who are attending Socialist street meetings this year. The wife and mother is the money spender of the family and, as such, feels the results of the new assessment much more keenly than does the man of the house. Every dollar taken by the tax collector means one dollar less to spend on good food and stylish clothing and, evidently, the women are resentful of the fact that council has decided that workers' wives and children shall eat less, wear less and enjoy fewer movies this year than last.8 The unpopular assessment was the chief issue of the campaign and was the reason why the Socialists triumphed.9 It might also be added that the victory could best be described in terms of their opponents' weaknesses rather than Socialist strength. However, the 1927 success provided the local movement with a momentum and confidence that would make it a formidable foe against strong opposi- tion in the future. Party membership and activities greatly increased in the months following the election. Whereas the organization had numbered less than one hundred dues-paying members in 1927, its ranks climbed to 881 by October, 1928. New branch organizations were established in the city and in some parts of the county as well. The J^ahor ^Advocate frequently reported renewed party ac- tivities, including educational and social programs, and recorded that "[s]everal hundred party members" participated in the 1928 nominating caucus.10 The 1927 triumph encouraged women's activity. The Women's Socialist League began scheduling regular weekly meetings at the party-owned Labor Lyceum: "Like every other party activity," the party paper observed, "the League has been gaining in interest and membership since the November election. The decision to meet at headquarters rather than in the homes of members, as heretofore, 8 Labor Advocate > Sept. 3, 1927. 9 For contemporary response to the Reading Socialist Party victory, see "No, Reading Has Not Gone Red!*' Literary Digest, 95 (Dec. 10, 1927), 14. 10 Minute Book of Local Berks, Oct. 4, 1928, 150, Darlington Hoopes Papers, Reading, Pa.; Labor Advocatey Feb. 4, 1928. The Hoopes Papers are available on microfilm at Penn- sylvania State University. 197$ WOMEN AND AMERICAN SOCIALISM 75 was rendered necessary by the constantly growing attendance."11 But it was the auxiliary role of the Women's Socialist League that continued to be most apparent. During the cooler months, the women sponsored a hassenpeffer card party. Such gatherings had long served both to raise money and to provide a recreational ac- tivity for the membership.12 When the summer months arrived, the party conducted picnics.13 An examination of the summer issues of the J^abor ^Advocate during the 1927-1936 period reveals the extent of financial dependence that the Socialist movement had upon its women members for these picnics. Throughout its history, the organization had sponsored picnics at local picnic groves. These fund-raising affairs usually were open to the general public. Games for children and other recreational activities, entertainment, including band concerts, plenty of food, and Socialist orators of both local and national prominence were often regular features. Women volunteers, who might best be called "Jennie Higginses" after the mythical rank and file party worker, "Jimmie Higgins," prepared lunches and desserts for these gather- ings and the J^abor ^Advocate usually printed appeals for assistance. In June, 1928, the chairman of the picnic arrangements committee was quoted in a front-page story: "and don't forget to tell the ladies that we are looking for the very kind of layer cakes they know how to bake." The writer added: "So shine up the mixing bowl, girls, and prepare to get busy." Two weeks later, an adver- tisement for the coming picnic ended with: "And Oh Ladies, Bring Cakes."14 The following year, the party rented a twenty-two acre picnic grove six miles outside the city and, later that year, purchased it for $8,500. Renamed "Socialist Park," it was one of the movement's proudest possessions. Party picnics became a more important insti- tution than ever. Substantial improvements were made on the grove's facilities, including the enlargement of the eating stand and kitchen. All work done at Socialist Park was provided by volunteer 11 Labor Advocate, Jan. 7 and 21, 1928. 12 Labor Advocate, Jan. 8, 1927; July 2, 1927; Dec. 10, 1927; Mar. 24, 1928. 13 Labor Advocate, July 9, 1927; George M. Rhodes, "A Brief History of the Socialist Park," ibid., Nov. 18, 1932. 14 Ibid., June 16 and 30, 1928. j6 WILLIAM C. PRATT January labor and, while the men built or painted, the women gave them meals prepared in the kitchen. Working at the park was a regular year-round Socialist activity, but the women's responsibility was greatest during the picnic season. Large crowds numbering perhaps as high as 25,000 people attended some of the picnics in the early and mid-i93os, and a crew of women cooks was always on duty.15 The 1927 election victory was followed by considerable effort to organize Socialist women beyond the women's league.